Essays on Educational Reformers

by Robert Hebert Quick

§ 13. According to the theory or at least the practice of English public schools, boys are left in their leisure hours to organize their life for themselves, and they form a community from which the masters are, partly by their own over-work, partly by the traditions of the school, utterly excluded. From this the intellectual education of the boys no doubt suffers. “Engage them in conversation with men of parts and breeding,” says Locke; and this was the old notion of training when boys of good family grew up as pages in the household of some nobleman. But, except in the holidays, the young aristocrats of the present day talk only with other boys, and servants, and tradesmen. Hence the amount of thought and conversation given to school topics, especially the games, is out of all proportion to the importance of such things; and this does much to increase what Matthew Arnold calls “the barbarians’” inaptitude for ideas.

§ 14. What are we to say about the effects of the system on the morals of the boys? If we were to start like Saint-Cyran from the doctrine of human depravity, we should entirely condemn the system and predict from it the most disastrous results;[90] but from experience we come to a very different conclusion. Bishop Dupanloup, indeed, spoke of the public schools of France as “ces gouffres.” This is not what is said or thought of the English schools, and they are filled with boys whose fathers and grandfathers were brought up in them, and desire above all things to maintain the old traditions.

§ 15. The Little Schools of Port-Royal aimed at training a few boys very differently; each master had the charge of five or six only, and these were never to be out of his presence day or night.[91]

§ 16. It may reasonably be objected that such schools would be possible only for a few children of well-to-do parents, and that men who would thus devote themselves could be found only at seasons of great enthusiasm. Under ordinary circumstances small schools have most of the drawbacks and few of the advantages which are to be found in large schools. As I have already said, parents, schoolmasters, and school-fellows have separate functions in education; and even in the smallest school the master can never take the place of the parent, or the school become the home. Children at home enter into the world of their father and mother; the family friends are their friends, the family events affect them as a matter of course. But in the school, however small, the children’s interests are unconnected with the master and the master’s family. The boys may be on the most intimate, even affectionate terms with the grown people who have charge of them; but the mental horizon of the two parties is very different, and their common area of vision but small. In such cases the young do not rise into the world of the adults, and it is almost impossible for the adults to descend into theirs. They are “no company” the one for the other, and to be constantly in each other’s presence would subject both to very irksome restraint. When left to themselves, boys in small numbers are far more likely to get into harm than boys in large numbers. In large communities even of boys, “the common sense of most” is a check on the badly disposed. So as it seems to me if from any cause the young cannot live at home and attend a day-school, they will be far better off in a large boarding school than in one that would better fulfil the requirements of Erasmus,[92] Saint-Cyran, and Locke.

§ 17. As Saint-Cyran attributed immense importance to the part of the master in education, he was not easily satisfied with his qualifications. “There is no occupation in the Church that is more worthy of a Christian; next to giving up one’s life there is no greater charity.... The charge of the soul of one of these little ones is a higher employment than the government of all the world.” (Cadet, 2.) So thought Saint-Cyran, and he was ready to go to the ends of the earth to find the sort of teacher he wanted.

§ 18. He was so anxious that the children should see only that which was good that the servants were chosen with peculiar care.

§ 19. For the masters his favourite rule was: “Speak little; put up with much; pray still more.” Piety was not to be instilled so much by precepts as by the atmosphere in which the children grew up. “Do not spend so much time in speaking to them about God as to God about them:” so formal instruction was never to be made wearisome. But there was to be an incessant watch against evil influences and for good. “In guarding the citadel,” says Lancelot, “we fail if we leave open a single gateway by which the enemy might enter.”

§ 20. Though anxious, like the Jesuits, to make their boys’ studies “not only endurable, but even delightful,” the Gentlemen of Port-Royal banished every form of rivalry. Each pupil was to think of one whom he should try to catch up, but this was not a school-fellow, but his own higher self, his ideal. Here Pascal admits that the exclusion of competition had its drawbacks and that the boys sometimes became indifferent—“tombent dans la nonchalance,” as he says.

§ 21. As for the instruction it was founded on this principle: the object of schools being piety rather than knowledge there was to be no pressure in studying, but the children were to be taught what was sound and enduring.